soon to feature actual people [Marc-Gregor Campredon]

Reports: Big Ten To Begin Season October 24th (UPDATE: IT'S OFFICIAL) Comment Count

Ace September 16th, 2020 at 9:28 AM

According to a report from Yahoo's Pete Thamel, as well as corroboration from The Athletic's Nicole Auerbach, the Big Ten has decided to move forward with a football season that will kick off next month.

On Wednesday morning, the waiting finally ended. Sources confirmed to Yahoo Sports that the Big Ten will return to play in the fall of 2020. The league is expected to start the season on Oct. 24, which is scheduled to allow for both a conference title game and a potential spot in the College Football Playoff.

The major shift that swayed the conference's decision on playing a fall season was the availability of rapid testing. Or that's going to be the PR pitch, at least.

What changed in less than five weeks? A confluence of medical advancements, fan blowback, political pressure and the successful start of the college football season elsewhere – especially in leagues like the ACC – all contributed to the league reversing course. Sources said that the presence of daily rapid testing, which has led to a successful start in the NFL, will be used in the Big Ten and will be a key part of the league’s messaging why it’s moving forward.

We'll have much more on this whenever there's an official announcement and accompanying schedule. There'll be time for an eight-game conference-only season and Big Ten title game with that start date if there are no weeks off—fingers crossed that this goes smoothly!—in order to get the season played before the college football playoff field is chosen.

IMMEDIATE UPDATE: IT'S OFFICIAL, THINGS ARE MOVING FAST AROUND HERE.

The Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors (COP/C) adopted significant medical protocols including daily antigen testing, enhanced cardiac screening and an enhanced data-driven approach when making decisions about practice/competition. The COP/C voted unanimously to resume the football season starting the weekend of October 23-24, 2020. The decision was based on information presented by the Big Ten Return to Competition Task Force, a working group that was established by the COP/C and Commissioner Kevin Warren to ensure a collaborative and transparent process.
 
The Big Ten will require student-athletes, coaches, trainers and other individuals that are on the field for all practices and games to undergo daily antigen testing. Test results must be completed and recorded prior to each practice or game. Student-athletes who test positive for the coronavirus through point of contact (POC) daily testing would require a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test to confirm the result of the POC test.

There are many more details in the full press release. Buried at the end is a promising note about the rest of the sporting slate:

Eventually all Big Ten sports will require testing protocols before they can resume competition. Updates regarding fall sports other than football, as well as winter sports that begin in the fall including men’s and women’s basketball, men’s ice hockey, men’s and women’s swimming and diving, and wrestling, will be announced shortly.

Here we go.

There is no content after the jump.

Comments

smwilliams

September 16th, 2020 at 9:50 AM ^

I'm not sure why a rational voice is being downvoted, but I agree with you. I'm happy to have Michigan football back, but there are legitimate concerns that haven't been addressed yet. It seems like a majority of this country just decided that we've already past that point where it's feasible to do anything, so might as well pretend everything is normal. 

I wonder what the schedule will look like. Guessing six division games plus two crossovers. With Michigan's luck, they'll get Wisconsin and Minnesota while Ohio State will get Illinois and Purdue. 

 

bronxblue

September 16th, 2020 at 9:58 AM ^

They released that schedule some time ago so I assume they'll just cut that down.

As for the negs, I don't really care.  It's a sports blog about Michigan and I'm saying "it is sort of sad that we put so much energy into having entertainment for Saturday while the rest of the country sort of burns".  It's cynical and pissing in everyone's cereal, and I get it.

But I also saw a colleague's kids first week of school get waylaid because of delayed testing forcing classes to pivot out of the classroom just as kids were getting settled, and yet we're making it super easy for the backup TE at Nebraska to get a rapid test result so that he can get to practice.  So yeah, good in people who wanted to play to be able to play, but this decision wasn't because of some change in the medical outlook for anyone, just that presidents don't want to be yelled at by people crazy enough to fly up from Orlando to Chicago to stand in front of the Buca de Bebi outside of your office complex and wave flags about letting games happen.

Hotel Putingrad

September 16th, 2020 at 11:26 AM ^

It's all very confusing. The Midwest is seeing the biggest increase in cases right now, and my daughter's high school just moved UP having kids back in the building by 10 days (and MN is meeting Monday to restart fall prep sports).

I share your wonderment, bronxblue, and I can't help but think most people have just given up on any type of inconveniences, no matter how many get sick and die. I knew that point would come after the election (whatever the result), but I'm shocked to see it arrive in mid-September.

bklein09

September 16th, 2020 at 1:20 PM ^

Yes, it actually is. Are you honestly saying that there should have been zero restrictions put into place regarding COVID19? No masks, no closing anything, no travel restrictions, nada? Just let people decide?

If so, this conversation is over because your critical thinking skills are non-existent.

And the only thing I'm "afraid" of is people who think like you.

blue in dc

September 16th, 2020 at 5:11 PM ^

What happens when bars allow 10-% occupancy and hospitals get over run.  Someone makes the choice to go to the bar and someone else suffers because their “elective” surgery gets cancelled, or someone gets diverted to a hospital miles away because emergency rooms are over run and has a worse medical outcome because of it.

bronxblue

September 16th, 2020 at 1:52 PM ^

I know we're getting rapidly close to the end of political arguments here, but I remained amazed that there are over 200k dead people in this country and a bunch of people continue to argue that this is some personal liberty bullshit.  7 people died as a result of a wedding none of them attended, and that's the first one that comes to memory.  We are not all closed systems; our actions as an individual in a society have effects on others.  And so when people don't wear masks or practice social distancing because they want to waddle around Menards, attend a FSU-GT game, or hang out at a house party, it has far-reaching impact on others.  

I swear, the people most afraid of this disease are people who want to act like it isn't a danger and that you can overcome it with gumption and not listening to the Lame Stream Media.  So I welcome the negs, but save me this intellectually dishonest argument that enacting thoughtful, measured responses to slow the spread of a deadly disease is because people are sheep.

bronxblue

September 16th, 2020 at 1:18 PM ^

You mean the millionaire head coach of a college football team wants to see his football team play football?  Shockingly unbiased opinion there, I'm sure.

Again, people who wanted football get what they want; you should be happy.  But you aren't going to convince me that schools forced to teach students remotely out of fear of a deadly pandemic deciding that a bunch of student-athletes who oh so coincidentally are part of a billion-dollar enterprise that lines their AD's coffers with millions of dollars a year changed their tune in about a month on this disease because rapid testing (something we knew was coming months ago) is available.  Because I'd argue that the greater good here would be to increase rapid testing on campuses so that staff and students could, in theory, attend classes in person.  Again, not just make it easier for a bunch of football players practice football quicker.

25dodgebros

September 16th, 2020 at 10:00 AM ^

Still hopeful that this will not happen.   October 24 is a long way away in Covid-time so there is still time for these schools to realize the craven immorality of this decision.   Ann Arbor is unlikely to keep the virus contained between now and then.  It is already generating mandatory quarantines in East Lansing.  Does anyone really believe that students will simply sit alone in their apartments and dorm rooms before and during games?  This just put 8 super-spreader events on every college's calendar.  And what will those kids do?  Spread it to residents of their college towns and their parent's communities when they go home.   Why would the BIG do this?  For the money, of course.  The Big10 and its member institutions just decided to spread a deadly virus because they are being well-paid to do it.  

mgobaran

September 16th, 2020 at 11:17 AM ^

The immoral decision was for the school to bring 45,000 students to campus for on-campus learning. 

It's hypocritical to say 100 of those students can't play football. 

Now, if the campus at the University of Michigan is shut down by then, sure we can talk about how immoral it would be to continue the football season. But at that point, it's almost more safe to have the football team on an empty campus. 

The only issue I see is that the university should be providing these same daily tests to all students. 

jmblue

September 16th, 2020 at 12:20 PM ^

The immoral decision was for the school to bring 45,000 students to campus for on-campus learning. 

That decision acknowledges the reality that young adults are overwhelmingly at low risk from Covid-19.  It's only "immoral" if you believe that we need to aim for literally no one to ever get sick (a Quixotic goal) or if you believe that we need some kind of shared sacrifice for the entire population. 

In the long run, the more people that have antibodies to Covid-19, the better off we will be.  If those antibodies can be gained via vaccine, that would be great, but we don't know when that will happen.  We should not assume it's right around the corner.  If the virus passes through large segments of the young population, that shouldn't pose too many problems as long as this population takes precaution before visiting people in at-risk groups.  That's what we're seeing now, where cases in Michigan are rising again but hospitalizations remain very low.

It's just illogical for people to justify having students on campus and then act like allowing football players (who are actually going to be tested regularly) to play is some kind of abomination.

25dodgebros

September 16th, 2020 at 1:32 PM ^

You seem to think that infecting a large group of young people poses no risk to anyone else.  It is hard to believe someone can be that willfully blind to how this virus operates in our society.  I personally know many people in my neighborhood who were infected by their college-age and 20 something kids.  Some were at that bar in E Lansing.  Some came home from other parts of the country.  Try to tell a 60-something dad with a heart problem that we should simply infect large groups of people  under 30 and "it shouldn't pose many problems."  In many states, "depraved indifference" to the results of your actions that causes death results in a 2d degree murder charge.  Hard to see how what you are advocating should be treated differently.  

mgobaran

September 16th, 2020 at 2:08 PM ^

Michigan's reasoning for bringing kids to campus was money, money, and more money. They put a shoddy plan together, are placing kids in bad quarantine conditions, the GEO on strike over how awful this has been, and the faculty is about to place a vote of no confidence in the President. 

Some colleges are expelling kids and not refunding a dime of tuition for breaking covid rules. That on par with getting a $40,000 ticket for not wearing a mask into a gas station. 

 

But I'm with you with your last sentence. If the campus is already open, there is no reason not to have football. 

bklein09

September 16th, 2020 at 1:27 PM ^

Forgot the /s in my post I guess. Didn't think it was really necessary. 

I was just pointing out how shitty much of our fan base is. People threw a toddler tantrum when football was postponed, and then will throw another one as soon as we play poorly. It's pretty pathetic honestly. 

I would hope the #LetThemPlay crowd would be so grateful for the season that they would gain some perspective, but the chances of that are about zero. 

joegeo

September 16th, 2020 at 10:32 AM ^

Just going to put this out there:

“We expect the daily death rate in the U.S., because of seasonality and declining public vigilance, to reach nearly 3,000 a day in December."

University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

https://covid19.healthdata.org/global?view=total-deaths&tab=trend

Go ahead and be excited about the possibility. But this season won't necessarily happen.

crg

September 16th, 2020 at 11:45 AM ^

Does anyone know the type of test this "rapid test" will be?  I took my first covid test today (saliva based) and it appeared very easy to manipulate this into a false negative (any method to dilute one's spittle just before testing - the test was very specific not to eat/drink 30min prior).  Not that any team/players would ever do such a thing, but when the incentive is there...

bklein09

September 16th, 2020 at 12:39 PM ^

Exactly crg. For example, there is 0.0% chance that Justin Fields tests positive during the season. I would be willing to be money on it. Heck, they'll probably try to give him COVID right now, so he's ready to go by October 24th. Full LSU-style is what we can expect from OSU. 

They're going to play 9 games in 9 weeks, and OSU will have to be perfect in order to make the CFP. Their test positivity rate will be the lowest in the conference. Take it to the bank.